how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
2 edits | reply to dadkins
Re: VZ, AT&T, and TW... said by dadkins:No shocker for AT&T, but VZ and TW. Yeah, this is good idea!  They sell my info, *I* should get something out of it besides ads.  Well these companies make a good point:
quote:
And finally, all participants -- including ad networks, search engines, Internet-service providers and others -- need to commit to those principles and agree to certification of compliance by an independent third-party. "We believe companies engaged in online behavioral advertising should agree to participate in a credible, third-party certification process to demonstrate to consumers that they are doing what they say with regard to the collection and use of information for online behavioral advertising," he said.
That these rules being considered by Congress should apply to all web sites as well as ISPs. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, BBR, etc should also have to do the same thing - make use of user interaction OPT-IN. Most web sites don't even have an OPT-OUT policy, let alone an OPT-IN one.
Why should data collection & ad targeting laws be applied to ISPs and not also all the web sites as well? After all, use of an ISP is just as voluntary as is use of a web site or search engine.
I notice that some of those supporting laws curtailing ISP data collection options are the same ones that would benefit from less competition from ISPs - MS, Google, Yahoo, etc. The drafts of the proposed law do not include web sites and search engines. This looks like just more of the same - don't want to compete - so get laws that only apply to your competitors.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| How about...... Both a legally binding opt-in AND
" all participants -- including ad networks, search engines, Internet-service providers and others -- need to commit to those principles and agree to certification of compliance by an independent third-party."
So if you choose to opt-in you KNOW they won't abuse the agreement
| |
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: VZ, AT&T, and TW... I'm not opposed to rules being in effect for web sites as well, nor am I opposed to rules being in effect for companies such as google that are in a more unique and powerful position than the average web site. There need to be boundaries and norms set across the board.
Still we shouldn't blur a major distinction. Everything that you do or see or go to online has to pass through your isp so they are the one entity that is in a position to know everything that you do online and track every move you make. Although they say they won't do so they also are in a unique position to be able to personally identify you and tie everything that you do to your name, address etc.
This makes the situation for isps particularly dangerous and therefore they need to be a greater focus than the millions of websites that are out there. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
quote:
And finally, all participants -- including ad networks, search engines, Internet-service providers and others -- need to commit to those principles and agree to certification of compliance by an independent third-party. "We believe companies engaged in online behavioral advertising should agree to participate in a credible, third-party certification process to demonstrate to consumers that they are doing what they say with regard to the collection and use of information for online behavioral advertising," he said.
said by fAcEtIOUs:That these rules being considered by Congress should apply to all web sites as well as ISPs. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, BBR, etc should also have to do the same thing - make use of user interaction OPT-IN. Most web sites don't even have an OPT-OUT policy, let alone an OPT-IN one. I think that alike rules ought to apply to alike operations. For example, the rules about the www.verizon.net portal ought to be the same as for any other similar site on the net. It doesn't matter that Verizon is an ISP -- the rules for website data ought to be the same.
In so much as Verizon is also an ISP (a traffic carrier between the websites and the users), I think that the rules governing ISPs ought to match the rules for other ISPs -- but any increased scrutiny to ISPs would only apply to that traffic-carriage function. Their website wouldn't be any more regulated because they're also an ISP.
Right now, one of the big problems is that some ISPs are covered under the Communications Act, some under the Cable Act, and some conveyances aren't clearly under either. The ECPA, which was written to cover electronic communications, still is clouded in some of these cases!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
I'm not opposed to rules being in effect for web sites as well, nor am I opposed to rules being in effect for companies such as google that are in a more unique and powerful position than the average web site. There need to be boundaries and norms set across the board.
Just probing -- what makes Google a special case in your mind. Just it's size? Is your concern an anti-trust thing? Or is it their "analytics" and you think that analytics activity in general needs some regulation?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| Certainly google analytics is an important part of my concern. Google is THE search engine today.They have developed an extensive advertising operation and are able to aggregate information and track people in ways that no individual or typical company website could hope to do.
This gives them a power that I would place somewhere between that of the isp(which I feel is in the most powerful and dangerous position) and that of the average website(which I feel is relatively harmless).
It's not size per se, though size is often related to position of power. The greater the power the greater the need for boundaries to constrain it. The present financial crisis reminds us markets do not necessarily act as an effective check. There have to be social and political norms in place to create the right ethos. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | That's a fair answer. I respect your point of view.
I hate to punish an outfit simply for being successful. Google has done some very interesting things to make sure that customers can come AND GO as they please.
For example, if you use Gmail, you can export your address book and take it with you to any provider of your choice. A lot of other webmail services "lock you in" by making it easy to import addresses, but not export them.
If you use something like AdBlock or hosts file to block their domains, cookies, or whatnot, they don't even try to get around your blocks or prevent you from using their search features.
They're also one of the most open companies that I've heard of.
And take their position on Net Neutrality -- Google has the money to pay the extra fares that big ISPs want to charge them. Fighting for Net Neutrality doesn't just help Google, it helps its competitors equally well.
I'm a little bit Pollyanna, but stuff like that goes a long way for me. I agree that they have a lot of power. But examples like these demonstrate to me that they tend not to use that power to disadvantage its users or unethically hit at its competitors.
While I mildly disagree with your concern, I can respect your position. It's gotten pretty rough in the war between the BigCorps and the rest of the world, and as Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| | |
|
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
·Comcast
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdf
Although Google is in a more powerful position than the average website, the ISPs are in that much more of a powerful position. If I want to hide from Google, I use a proxy. Not so much with my ISP.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau | |
approval from:
funchords 
| reply to funchords
I don't really disagree with you and I have been more defender than critic of google. I just tend to take the long view and I'm an old enough fart to know the predictable way things generally play out.
"I hate to punish an outfit simply for being successful. "
I'm not looking to punish google. I'm looking for norms and boundaries that reinforce people's better tendencies and counteract their worst. As long as google continues to behave relatively well sound rules shouldn't be a particular burden to them.
"But examples like these demonstrate to me that they tend not to use that power to disadvantage its users or unethically hit at its competitors."
I agree with what you say but companies have a life cycle. Google is still a young, rising, growing company driven by its original creators idealism and vision. They won't be rising forever and we know how power warps everything it touches. Down the road the original visionaries retire or are forced out, growth slows, upstarts come along trying to get a foot in the door, one no longer feels like a young buck but feels old and threatened, the seductiveness of leveraging power to protect one's established position becomes overwhelming. In short they will become a thorn in the side of society as have nearly all who came before them. I agree they aren't that presently. Wise policy can delay that inevitable day. | |
|
